Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

PACCAR PowertrainPACCAR Powertrain
VS
JLRJLR
PACCAR Powertrain

PACCAR Powertrain

N/A

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://paccarpowertrain.com
748/1000Moderate

At PACCAR Powertrain, we’re engineering new ways to bring you superior technology at a better value. Our future-focused innovations are all about enabling you to excel. Whether used separately or as parts of an integrated whole, our Engines, Transmissions and Axles for ...

NAICS:3361
NAICS Definition:Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:34
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
JLR

JLR

Abbey Road, Coventry, CV3 4LF, GB

Last Update: 10/08/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.jlr.com
100/1000Critical

At JLR, we create exceptional experiences through our brands: Range Rover, Defender, Discovery and Jaguar. As the corporate home of these iconic British brands, we bring together world-class design, pioneering innovation and the creative ambition that drives our busines...

NAICS:3361
NAICS Definition:Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:43,694
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PACCAR Powertrain

PACCAR Powertrain

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
JLR

JLR

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PACCAR Powertrain in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

JLR has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - PACCAR Powertrain (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PACCAR Powertrain cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - JLR (X = Date, Y = Severity)

JLR cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
PACCAR Powertrain

PACCAR Powertrain

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
JLR

JLR

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
AFLJAGNUC1768389868
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
ADIHEAHARMARTHEJAG1767017696
🔒 Incident : Breach
COU1764518078

FAQ

Between PACCAR Powertrain company and JLR company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between PACCAR Powertrain company and JLR company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between PACCAR Powertrain company and JLR company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between PACCAR Powertrain company and JLR company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between PACCAR Powertrain company and JLR company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between PACCAR Powertrain company and JLR company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between PACCAR Powertrain company and JLR company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between PACCAR Powertrain company and JLR company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between PACCAR Powertrain company and JLR company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between PACCAR Powertrain company and JLR company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between PACCAR Powertrain company and JLR company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between PACCAR Powertrain and JLR, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between PACCAR Powertrain and JLR, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - PACCAR Powertrain or JLR ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - PACCAR Powertrain or JLR ?
Between PACCAR Powertrain and JLR, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between PACCAR Powertrain and JLR, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8